Xref: utzoo comp.protocols.nfs:152 comp.protocols.tcp-ip:6732
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!van-bc!skl
From: skl@van-bc.UUCP (Samuel Lam)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.nfs,comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Subliminal (RFC1097)
Summary: RFC1097 is not directly implementable. :-) :-) :-)
Keywords: RFC1097 Subliminal Joke
Message-ID: <2355@van-bc.UUCP>
Date: 8 Apr 89 23:30:23 GMT
References: <8904081252.AA03712@alanine.phri.nyu.edu>
Followup-To: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Organization: Balliffe International, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 21

In article <8904081252.AA03712@alanine.phri.nyu.edu>, roy@ALANINE.PHRI.NYU.EDU (Roy Smith) wrote:
>Uh, yeah Bob, I think it was a joke.  Did you notice the April 1st date
>on the RFC?  You are of course correct about the evils of subliminality
>but I wouldn't be surprised if some hackers out there have already worked
			     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>support for 1097 into their telnet clients and servers.  Perhaps it was
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>a joke taken too far, but rest assured that it was a joke.

Well, at least they wouldn't be able to implement RFC1097 "to-the-letter". :-)

RFC854 says the TELNET option code is one-byte long.  Now, someone would
have to be pretty creative to figure out how to jam the decimal value
257 into that poor byte. :-)  (Of course, "byte" means octect in this
context.)

(I admit that I wasn't totally convinced about it being a joke until the
257 came along. :-( )

-- 
Samuel Lam     {alberta,watmath,uw-beaver,cs.ubc.ca}!ubc-cs!van-bc!skl